The best case scenario would be that it handles all of those scenarios in A) a highly readable way and B) has high quality documentation that demonstrates the use of all the necessary features in context.
Make's approach appears to be to use cryptic flags and settings and the best case documentation appears to be "have you tried stack overflow?". It is not the be all and end all of build systems.
Additionally, for many of the non-C++ workflows I want to accommodate, the 'make' approach appears to be hack around its deficiencies with bash scripting. Stringing together hacky bash scripts is not what I would describe as a best case scenario in any project.
I don't think of this guy's project is a meaningful competitor to make/cmake but equally, I can envisage other projects doing a better job than make on its home turf.